On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:53:15 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 8/30/2017 11:36 AM, wjhonson wrote: > > > Like I said, relying on Y matches *with* a "strong paper trail" is the > > quest of fools and old sponges. > > If you have not used Autosomal DNA to even show that you are related to your own "relatives", than you need to start from scratch. > > Repeating such statements over and over again does not make them true.  > You seem to offer no justification for these statements beyond some > general concerns that maybe some combination of unlikely events has > caused the evidence to be misinterpreted.  All individuals who are > knowledgeable about DNA genealogy know that there is a statistical > aspect to this that make absolute certainty impossible.  One can always > concoct scenarios in which some series of unlikely events has caused > evidence to lead to incorrect conclusions, and most of us try to follow > a sort of "let's not be ridiculous" principle.  After all, how do we > know that one of your parents wasn't formerly a foreign spy with a > falsified identity, and that foreign agents didn't also use their > contacts at the DNA companies to falsify your DNA report to keep you > from finding out? (Don't worry, I won't report you.)  If two individuals > with the same surname have closely matching DNA suggesting a common > ancestry after the surname forming period, then it is much more likely > than not that their common ancestor also had that surname.  If they have > strong paper trails identifying a common ancestor (and I mean genuinely > strong, not just what an amateur might think is strong), then it is much > more likely than not that their genetic ancestry matches their paper > trail ancestry.  If their are many such individuals descended in a wide > variety of ways from the common ancestor, then the evidence is nearly > certain (with the possible, but still unlikely, exception of the most > recent common ancestor's wife having an affair with another man).  Your > insistence on autosomal DNA makes me wonder why you are even concerned > about medieval genealogy, for which autosomal DNA currently has > virtually no use (a situation that will continue unless we start digging > up mass quantities of medieval corpses and testing them, and even then > would be largely hit or miss). > > Stewart Baldwin Exactly. For example my surname is Langley, my Y DNA cluster of Langleys is about 10-15+ strong, the biggest cluster of Langleys tested. Due to the amount of matching surnames I am confident I am a Langley back to at least 300-500 years ago. Something else would be immensely unlikely. Additionally those that test tie back to South Carolina overlapping suspected relations to my paper trail. This strongly supports my paper trail, certainly I descend from something close to it. If I had Y DNA match a sizable cluster of Langleys from England that would also tell me plenty. None of this requires autosomal DNA. With that said I've done many autosomal DNA tests as well, myself, my mother, father, maternal aunt, uncle and grandmother, as well as a cousin. It's great for more recent generations of genealogy and is useful in conjunction with Y DNA testing too. They both have value outside of each other.